Rafferty, P. (2001). The representation of
knowledge in library classification schemes. Knowledge Organization, 28, 180-91
The main argument of this article
is that power is no system of classification is without some level of bias.
This is important because social power and structure are conveyed through
classification schemes. The ways in which libraries categorize and classify
knowledge mirrors the way society views that knowledge. Library classification
schemes are rooted in the practical applications of how users search for and
use knowledge. Controlled vocabularies and hierarchical structures attempt to
optimize usability. However, the question remains, for whom are such systems
optimized?
When a subject is defined as a main
class, it becomes of primary importance, within which subclasses are secondary,
and further divisions tertiary, etc. So, the structure itself is necessarily
fraught with bias. They simultaneously dominate over a given piece of
information, forcing it to conform to a given structure and organization into
which it may not easily fit, and enable easier searchability and greater open
access to varied ideas. Therefore, organizational schemes can both maintain and
subvert a given paradigm, often at the same time.
Because classification schemes are
built on other existing classification schemes, and prior knowledge, they are
necessarily biased by what came before. For example, notational language and
controlled vocabulary must, by necessity, be exclusionary. Those who don’t use
the right terminology or correct notation are considered inferior. How we place
and organize records is influenced and controlled by how we feel and think
about them and their subjects. There is a necessary subjective bias.
Many organizational schemes were
originally defined by religiosity, with God at the top of the hierarchy of
classification, and the dominant religion of the culture considered the
standard default in discussions of religion. Likewise, a schema which places
academia at the center, and utilizes the organizational schemes derived from
various disciplines of academia, has the advantage of taking into consideration
the information organization that a majority of users will utilize. However,
this presents the bias of illegitimizing sources external to academia,
particularly Western academia, and promulgating a specific view of what is
important and what is not, based on a particular world-view.
What is classified and what is not
marks a boundary for what is important knowledge and what it not. This defines
the self vs. other, and demarcates the boundary for what matters to society.
Libraries as social institutions are completely involved in what information,
and what sources, are legitimized. For example, fiction is often devalued,
until it happens to sell enough copies, at which point it is accepted by
academia as a social signifier. So, classification makes its way from libraries
to realms of social thought and vice versa.
